Services

Science limits

WELL said, Mr Plaisted! I’ll wager that the scientist referred to is the one who states that the first self-replicating molecule, the key to the creation of life, came about by “accident”.

The medical scientist Professor Stephen Palmer writes: “Unfortunately, most lay people are beguiled by the aura of science into thinking that scientific textbooks are the last word in truth. But they may contain just as many errors and limitations as the people who write them, and they will consistently propound dogma which upholds the self-esteem of science.”

A reading of the early chapters of 1st Corinthians shows that the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God are irreconcilable. Men may speak while God will act, and it is the actions of God, past, present, and future, which will be the deciding factor, not the conjectural words of men.

Comments

Take the blinkers off mate. God is a lie. The bible is a lie. You are a lie.

Amen

Take the blinkers off mate. God is a lie. The bible is a lie. You are a lie.
AmenexMark

Take the blinkers off mate. God is a lie. The bible is a lie. You are a lie.

Amen

Score: 6

coalpicker
10:32am Thu 1 May 14

exMark wrote…

Take the blinkers off mate. God is a lie. The bible is a lie. You are a lie.

Amen

Sorry to disagree, a political confidence trick put together by ancient people resembling Blair preying on fear and superstition .

[quote][p][bold]exMark[/bold] wrote:
Take the blinkers off mate. God is a lie. The bible is a lie. You are a lie.
Amen[/p][/quote]Sorry to disagree, a political confidence trick put together by ancient people resembling Blair preying on fear and superstition .coalpicker

exMark wrote…

Take the blinkers off mate. God is a lie. The bible is a lie. You are a lie.

Amen

Sorry to disagree, a political confidence trick put together by ancient people resembling Blair preying on fear and superstition .

Score: 2

Jimport
10:58am Thu 1 May 14

Yes, science is fallible because it is a human conception, and humans are fallible because they are real. Your conception of God, on the other hand, is infallible because it is not real.

Yes, science is fallible because it is a human conception, and humans are fallible because they are real. Your conception of God, on the other hand, is infallible because it is not real.Jimport

Yes, science is fallible because it is a human conception, and humans are fallible because they are real. Your conception of God, on the other hand, is infallible because it is not real.

Score: 4

varteg1
11:17am Thu 1 May 14

First Mr McCarthy you must use some high degree of empirical evidence that this god you bang on about actually exists outside of the minds of the deluded who constantly refer to it as though it is a touchable, visible, smellable, or hear-able entity, going to church and devouring a sliver of communion bread, or taking a sip of Christ's blood in the form of a wine in the belief it is taste-able, hardly comes near to verifiable evidence.

But you are free to carry on in your fantasy, just don't smear it over the only religion free free pages of a commercial publication by writing in letters that seek to push your incredible doctrinaire ism. it does not resonate with most, if anything it simply annoys.

First Mr McCarthy you must use some high degree of empirical evidence that this god you bang on about actually exists outside of the minds of the deluded who constantly refer to it as though it is a touchable, visible, smellable, or hear-able entity, going to church and devouring a sliver of communion bread, or taking a sip of Christ's blood in the form of a wine in the belief it is taste-able, hardly comes near to verifiable evidence.
But you are free to carry on in your fantasy, just don't smear it over the only religion free free pages of a commercial publication by writing in letters that seek to push your incredible doctrinaire ism. it does not resonate with most, if anything it simply annoys.varteg1

First Mr McCarthy you must use some high degree of empirical evidence that this god you bang on about actually exists outside of the minds of the deluded who constantly refer to it as though it is a touchable, visible, smellable, or hear-able entity, going to church and devouring a sliver of communion bread, or taking a sip of Christ's blood in the form of a wine in the belief it is taste-able, hardly comes near to verifiable evidence.

But you are free to carry on in your fantasy, just don't smear it over the only religion free free pages of a commercial publication by writing in letters that seek to push your incredible doctrinaire ism. it does not resonate with most, if anything it simply annoys.

Score: 2

Walter Devereux
12:18pm Thu 1 May 14

So how did life come about then? Which of the two contradictory accounts in Genesis is right? Genesis 1:25-27, where Humans were created after the other animals and man and woman were created at the same time, or Genesis 2:18-22 where Humans were created before the other animals and the woman out of a Man's rib? Which part of this infallible word of the creator is actually right? What's that? Neither?

So how did life come about then? Which of the two contradictory accounts in Genesis is right? Genesis 1:25-27, where Humans were created after the other animals and man and woman were created at the same time, or Genesis 2:18-22 where Humans were created before the other animals and the woman out of a Man's rib? Which part of this infallible word of the creator is actually right? What's that? Neither?Walter Devereux

So how did life come about then? Which of the two contradictory accounts in Genesis is right? Genesis 1:25-27, where Humans were created after the other animals and man and woman were created at the same time, or Genesis 2:18-22 where Humans were created before the other animals and the woman out of a Man's rib? Which part of this infallible word of the creator is actually right? What's that? Neither?

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here